Speak Out Network
Take 'Em to Task: Occupy Obama
 |
Read Mark Taylor-Canfield’s Open Letter to Dr. Cornel West, originally published on dailykos.com. |
||
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ricardo Jones on -
I've lived in other foreign countries and spent time in many more. My point is we can't give up and let the ruling class win. I saw the Occupy Wall Street protest in NYC. The whole protest was a joke exploted by the main stream media. It looked like Woodstock of the 1970's. Wallstreet gangsters are friends of Mayor Bloomberg. When Bloomberg and the other City Majors became feed up they used the Brownshirt (NYPD and others) to start a crystal night and remove the protesters. If we're going to fight back then tactics from the 1970's with no updates won't and didn't work. Sellouts who pimped the Occupy Wall Street plateform never were there when the police (Brownshirts) moved in. Too many of US benefit from the corruption of Wallstreet and the government. We would do better to register voters in the poor and working class communites inform them and vote out the ruling class. If we want a third party then creat one but not like Tea party. The economy won't change in the next 10-20 years. The president doesn't have a plan with any substance to promote the working class in the future. The president handlers are Wallstreet and LaSalle Street of Chicago. We have power if we stop fighting each other and fight the ruling class. The president and the media control what the working class think. Why do you think the president pretents to be working class (blue shirt, no tie or jacket)? The president isn't working class and has never been. This is just a game to control the working classes votes. Take a hard look at what happened to Germany after WWI.
-
Permalink Reply by Ricardo Jones on
-
The working class and the poor aren't fighting back yet. Katrina and BP show's that there's no difference bewteen obama and bush. The only good business deal bush (before being the gov of TX and president) had involved the Texas Rangers baseball team the former Washington Senators baseball team an wasn't his money. obama couldn't get elected to the house and then he's elected to the senate and then (only black looking senator) within two years he's elected to president. One was an ex-presidents son and the other is what? Why are we making decision this way? Either one had or has a plan for the working classes of this great country. So we re-elect the president again? To do what? For whom? No accountability and/or reform of the corruption in government.
-
Permalink Reply by Maggie Meehan on -
I take your point on the use of the word "right" but I still am very frustrated with listening to people who state with great volume, few facts and not much logic their criticism of our system if they don't participate.
No, I don't feel very good about voting, but I find it an obligation. It doesn't mean I shouldn't be doing other things--I do many other things--invest a lot of energy and as much cash as I can afford. I am really impressed with the things the various Occupy groups have been able to accomplish--not the least the Minneapolis group today.
By the way, what are you doing besides complaining, if you are not voting---what are you role modeling for the younger generation? I am really interested in hearing.
Jon Raymond said:Maggie, your opinion that people that don't vote don't have a right to credibly argue is quite totalitarian. You don't have the right to tell anyone what their rights are; nor to judge their credibility. Where in the Constitution does it say you have to vote to argue politics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he Constitution does not even specify that we have political parties, nor elections. It is therefore quite credible to argue that voting is questionable. The constitution doesn't even mention it. The decision to vote or not IS politics.
What about the disenfranchised? Do they also loose rights to argue politics? The current US government effectively disenfranchises all of us with voting fraud, the electoral college, lack of choice, and a government run by money. We have the right to argue against anything we want to, including the very existence of Congress and the very structure of government. That right is called free speech. Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say you have to vote to have these rights. You have them. Period. You, on the other hand, have no right to limit mine. Get an education.
Here is your government. Do you really believe that a vote will change this? If so tell it to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Raymond on -
First off, I'm sorry if I responded to you harshly. I do understand your position. I am a filmmaker. I made a film called got healthcare? The trailer is above. That's what I'm doing. The corporate media twists the facts and marginalizes the truth about things like occupy and the health care reform movements. I feel I can make a much bigger difference by exposing the truth that the media misses. Voting just drains my energy to spend time deciding among which disciple of the devil I want to give my stamp of approval to. It is hazardous to my well being to even go there. Plus a waste of valuable time. It will make no difference in elections that are decided well in advance by the fact that money determines who your choices are.
Have you seen the movie, Wag the Dog? It shows how media makes the election, not voting. Media decides for people because people watch the news and allow themselves to be influenced, as Ricardo illustrates when he talks about the media portrayal of occupy.
Ricardo,
You won't find any truth in the mainstream media. Occupy covers itself with live streaming. The revolution is not televised it is live streamed.
-
Permalink Reply by Maggie Meehan on
-
r
Jon, thank you for answering my query about what you are doing, and thank you for your film making. In order to respond, we first have to know what the problem issues are and you are certainly helping to provide that information.
Regarding voting, I do not equate "voting" in the general election with a choice only between the two major parties, although of course many do. I have only once in my 50 years of voting cast a straight party ticket and am not likely to ever do it again. I am a registered independent and in WV that means I can ask for either ballot in the primary, which I will probably do this year in May to support Ron Paul---not because I want him for president but because I want him to continue to be heard on foreign policy, which is my field.
I am sorry that voting causes you such angst. I consider it a "fig leaf" of sorts and my primary concern about people who don't vote and do "b****" (pardon my language), is that so many of them are no where near your level of commitment, contribution and concern. I m very interested in below the radar self help activities by organized groups and I am intrigued by the expansion of communication that takes place globally due to social media.
I am also a very firm believer that it is "better to light one candle than curse the darkness." I am an artist moving steadily in to "social commentary" in my art and I spend a lot of time with young people, listening to them and encouraging them to take whatever steps they believe in.
Cleaning up the two party corporate owned election farce will take a long time and I hope to see people doing whatever they believe in. With full awareness that it will take sacrifice and losses.
Are any of your films available on Youtube?
Jon Raymond said:First off, I'm sorry if I responded to you harshly. I do understand your position. I am a filmmaker. I made a film called got healthcare? The trailer is above. That's what I'm doing. The corporate media twists the facts and marginalizes the truth about things like occupy and the health care reform movements. I feel I can make a much bigger difference by exposing the truth that the media misses. Voting just drains my energy to spend time deciding among which disciple of the devil I want to give my stamp of approval to. It is hazardous to my well being to even go there. Plus a waste of valuable time. It will make no difference in elections that are decided well in advance by the fact that money determines who your choices are.
Have you seen the movie, Wag the Dog? It shows how media makes the election, not voting. Media decides for people because people watch the news and allow themselves to be influenced, as Ricardo illustrates when he talks about the media portrayal of occupy.
Ricardo,
You won't find any truth in the mainstream media. Occupy covers itself with live streaming. The revolution is not televised it is live streamed.
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Raymond on
-
Thanks Maggie,
I guess I've lost patience with the government and at this point, until I see the government embrace the issues occupy has raised (which will be a cold day in hell), I will have nothing to do with voting, support, or validation of this corrupt corporate welfare police state government. Occupy is probably the catalyst that turned me. They have proven that people can live quite easily without government, without a top-down organization, and with organized anarchy.
Your fig leaf concept is intriguing in that you seem to be saying that since the government is your adversary you'll give a peace offering in the form of voting to validate its existence. This is what I think the problem is. If people would just wake up to the fact that they actually have all the power if they'd only use it, we might make some progress. Instead we just seem the same scenario election after election, decade after decade. Don't vote. Protest in the streets. Invalidate this piece of crap mafioso government and maybe they'll pay attention. Keep voting and you play right into their grubby little hands.
My film is available on its website in DVD or Blu-Ray format. Also I would love it if you would "like" our Facebook page where you can keep up to date on health care reform issues, and link to other activist supporters and organizations like HCA and PNHP.
-
Permalink Reply by Ricardo Jones on
-
MR. RICARDO JONES, SR. is a veteran and the former Senior Federal Investigator for the new York District of the EEOC from 2001 to 2010. He describes how ...www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqyrvRaY4Ks - Cached
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Taylor-Canfield on -
This is a fascinating debate!
I've done a lot of guest spots on national media shows lately talking about these issues - the Thom Hartmann Show, Leslie Marshall, Norman Goldman, Mike Malloy, and Brad Bannon.
No one has ever disagreed with me that the election system is broken and that Big Money rules the day.
Even Democratic political consultants like Brad Bannon have agreed with me that the Citizen's United decision by the US Supreme Court has subverted our entire democracy.
Top Ten Reasons I can't vote for the Obama Administration, plus a critique of the lack of justice and accountability in our government:
1) President Barack Obama's Dept of Justice has refused to go after the Bush administration on a number of allegations regarding torture of detainees, extraordinary rendition, illegal surveillance on Americans, etc.
2) Eric Holder and the DOJ have failed to prosecute the Wall Street firms, banks and major corporations who caused the collapse of the US economy through unaccountable loans and corrupt financial and business practices.
3) Vice President Al Gore and the Democrats refused to accept any challenges in the House of Representatives to the Supreme Court's appointment of George W. Bush as President of the United States of America.
4) The voter suppression and miscounts in Ohio and Florida were never challenged by the courts.
5) There have been no consequences for Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Bush, Cheney, etc. despite their lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As a result of the invasion, millions of refugees were forced to leave their homes and perhaps as many as a million civilians have been killed, yet there have been no attempts to hold anyone accountable for war crimes. Over 4,000 US soldiers have lost their lives. In Afghanistan the United Nations estimates that there have been at least 12,700 civilian casualties.
6) Under the Obama administration, Bush's overzealous "War On Terror" has continued unabated with numerous CIA drone attacks in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. - also killing innocent civilians.
7) The prison at Guantanamo Bay is still open for business in spite of intense international criticism due to it's violation of international human rights treaties.
8) The president now has the power to assassinate American citizens with absolutely no oversight or accountability. No Habeas Corpus, and no trial by a jury of their peers! It's no longer such an exaggeration to say that the folks in power have "gone Medieval" on us. The Magna Charta from 1215 clearly states that no Lord, King, Knight, or Sheriff shall be given this power over life and death without due process and some kind of oversight by the courts or the people. In this case, the President has simply claimed the powers of an authoritarian dictator!
9) Despite his signing statement, Barack Obama's signature on the National Defense Authorization Act allows for unlimited detention of anyone "suspected" of having ties to terrorist groups. This act has caused many of his previous supporters to finally abandon ship, especially those participants in the national Occupy Wall Street movement.
10) Obama's largest campaign contributors are Goldman-Sachs, JP Morgan/Chase and Wells Fargo - the very same corporate interests who received public bailouts from the taxpayers. After all, why shouldn't Wall Street support the president since he seems to be so committed to serving their best interests instead of protecting the interests of the voters?
So, given these unacceptable circumstances, how can I possibly ask a potential voter to cast their ballot for this administration during the next national election?
The only answer I have ever received is: "We should vote for Barack Obama because the Republican candidate is even more right-wing and reactionary on these issues (civil rights, economics and military intervention)."
It's the same old "good cop" versus "bad cop" strategy that we have all seen a hundred times before...
Well, this time I'm not buying it!
I have met the president briefly while he was in Seattle and I believe that he is basically a very intelligent and compassionate man. But regardless of his personal integrity, he has made far too many compromises on issues of vital importance to the nation and to each one of us as individuals.
His decisions on national security and intelligence gathering may be with us for many decades to come and I fear that future right-wing Commanders in Chief will take advantage of the NDAA and Obama's executive orders to abuse these powers mercilessly. Since there are no accountability measures in place, there's absolutely no way for us to stop that from happening!
And who will we have to blame for allowing all of this to take place during his administration?
The answer is, of course, President Barack Obama - the man I campaigned for in the last election.
Does anyone dispute that?How can I, in good conscience, vote for someone who has potentially sold our freedoms to the highest bidder for the sake of political expediency?
I am once again asking for a response to my question, not just from Dr. Cornel West, but from the listeners this time. I certainly appreciate Dr. West's respectful and thoughtful response to my question on the air, but now I also want to know what other folks are thinking.
I do not support Mitt Romney or any of the other Republican candidates for US President - but that is not a good enough reason for me to compromise my own personal values by voting for a man whose policies have caused me to question whether democracy still exists in America. Barack Obama is certainly not responsible for every problem in our country today, but his actions have ruined the sense of inspired optimism I experienced after his election.
I just don't see the changes he promised us - do you?
Most if us are still struggling to afford healthcare and education for ourselves and our children because we lack access to economic opportunity. Exxon/Mobile is still making historic profits never seen before in the history of the world while many Americans are unemployed, under employed or completely destitute and homeless. Tax breaks for the wealthy continue to benefit the rich while funding for social programs are being slashed to the bone or cut entirely by our local and federal governments. The middle class and the poor are being forced t pay for the national debt while those who have helped cause the economic downturn are now back in the stock market still reaping huge profits whie riding on the backs of the working folks.
The wars are still continuing - innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan are still dying, and veterans are still being ignored and abandoned by our government .
And despite our best efforts and our authentically altruistic hopes for the future of society, overt racism obviously still exists in the US.
My only choice now is to become an Independent or to avoid voting altogether.
And can you really blame me for feeling this way?
I realize that politics is all about compromise, but not to the extent that it begins to dismantle the very principles which we are all obligated to protect: personal liberties, economic justice and democratic values!
I hope this dialogue continues. I look forward to reading everyone's comments.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Taylor-Canfield on
-
Listening to President Obama in Seattle -
For the sake of accuracy, let me point out that I was at an event in Seattle at the Key arena where candidate Obama spoke during his election campaign. I was one of the hundreds of people who could not get into the building due to overcrowding. The president is very popular in Seattle!
I was there also as a journalist and had planned to report on the event for a news program on the Pacifica Radio Network. I must admit, earlier that year I had also been a precinct delegate for him.
Before he spoke, Obama paused outside with all of us and gave a quick talk.
So to be very clear there was no official "meeting" with the president. It was just an informal address outside the building and I just happened to be present to hear what he had to say.
As I remember it, he was very enthusiastic and inspiring. His campaign platform covered a very long list of issues: education, healthcare, energy, environment, politics, international policy, economics, etc.
His official speech inside the arena was long and went over the allotted time as usual. I remember thinking, "How does he even remember all of these initiatives?" and "How is he going to be able to fulfill so many promises to so many people?"
It was quite clear that Barack Obama honestly believed in his own words - it was not just a ruse for the sake of political strategy. People were very excited and during his speech he stopped to call for aid for a woman who had fainted in the first row. He definitely had the "rock star" charisma necessary to rally the troops.
I have very fond memories of that event and the hope it inspired in everyone who was there. It was not the first time during his campaign that I was to see African American folks crying with joy after a lifetime of frustrated aspirations. We also saw that in Denver when he was nominated. In him we all saw ourselves - the underdog, the activist, the civil rights leader and the one true honest man in the election.
So you see, I have much respect for Barack Obama and what he has achieved. He has set a high personal standard of moral conduct and I appreciate that. Unlike Bush, he's not a loose cannon or a cowboy by any means. His approach to the nation has never been virulent or irrational in any way and I know that he has been a person who tries to build bridges between people who disagree with him.
But still I am not willing to give my part of the franchise to him at this time. That's what my vote represents to me - part of the national trust that is given to each one of us. It is a very sacred trust and it is ultimately only mine to give. What people decide to do or not do with that franchise is their own personal business and one of the reasons that we have voting booths which provide privacy rather than displaying our vote for all to see.
I will be blogging about the election @ Daily Kos and hopefully I won't stir up so much controversy with my next piece. I am cool with Democrats and folks who are campaigning for Obama - it includes the majority of my friends and family, but I still reserve the right to make my own decision whenever I deem it to be appropriate.
Until then, I will withhold my vote.
-
Permalink Reply by Ricardo Jones on
-
THIS LETTER(SIGNED)WAS EMAILED TO THE LIST BELOW:
February 22, 2011
Jacqueline A. Berrien (Appointee of President OBAMA)
Chairwoman
EEOC Headquarters
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street
Washington, DC 20507Re: DIRECTION OF EEOC AND
LOST OF PUBLIC TRUSTDear Chairwoman Berrien:
Congratulations on your confirmation in December 2010 as Chairwoman of EEOC. I was delighted in reading the news that President Barack Obama had appointed you as the fourteenth Chairperson to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission). Indeed, your background as a litigator and your association with the NAACP should definitely help you reshape the direction the agency will travel in the 21st century in fulfilling its mission to eradicate employment discrimination in America’s workplace, both public and private. I believe you have a difficult, but not impossible task, to accomplish your mandate.
I write this letter to express my concerns about how the EEOC is currently enforcing the federal anti-discrimination laws which are under its jurisdiction. In particular, I am greatly disturbed about how cases are being processed and investigated because discrimination in the federal sector is just as bad as in the private sector. I hope you will push more aggressively to bring change about within the EEOC’s field offices, including dealing with management officials and investigators who engage in prohibited personnel practices.
However, thus far, I have seen very little that you have done in issuing directives to District Directors and other personnel to swiftly reverse the Commission’s reputation as being inefficient in keeping track of the claims filed by aggrieved individuals; and to make sure the cases are properly processed and investigated; and that their civil rights are protected which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
I will begin with my concerns with the FEDERAL SECTOR. I am sure you are fully aware, the federal government is the largest employer in America and should lead the way in being a “model” employer in creating a diverse and honorable workplace. The EEOC’s annual report for 2009 for the federal government clearly shows that there is something wrong with this employer as it relates to the laws administered by the EEOC. As of July 2009, the EEOC employed approximately 110 Attorney Examiners of which 24 of them failed to maintain an “active” status in the bars they were admitted to practice law. On or about July 29, 2010, the EEOC employed the same the same number of Attorney Examiners of which 15 failed to maintain an “active” status in the bars they were admitted to practice. Furthermore, according to the Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition, there is no true position for Attorney Examiners-
Administrate Judges. Congress did not create such positions to impartially adjudicate claims arising under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.19. Congress created the position of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to adjudicate claims under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.19. I am requesting that your Attorney Examiners/Administrative Judges be converted to Administrative Law Judges; and that there be a cease and desist on Attorney Examiners/Administrative Judges conducting hearings who have failed to maintain an “active” status in the bars they were admitted to practice law.In 1990, the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) was implemented which required each federal agency to adopt a policy on the use of ADA. There are no real advantages for complainants to participate in the ARD program to resolve complaints based on my analysis of the statistical data. Complainants participating in the program face retaliation based on my review of grievances and arbitrations.
Until management officials throughout the federal government, including but not limited to EEOC, are held more accountable by being disciplined and/or terminated for not complying with the regulations there will be no change in this environment. For example in your own “shop”, I reviewed the lawsuit filed by Mr. Ricardo Jones, a former Investigator who was employed in your New York District Office, before your lawyers filed a motion to have it sealed, and was quite frankly appalled at what he had experienced. It appears based on the lawsuit that Mr. Jones was retaliated against by being denied a Within Grade Increase (WIGI), placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and terminated for whistle blowing activities protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA); specifically, when he disclosed incidents of gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, and violations of laws, rules, and regulations which happen in his office. These acts were happening in his office and he attempted to correct the matter and as a result was terminated. Management officials in other filed offices have engaged in gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, and violations of laws, rules, and regulations.
As for the PRIVATE SECTOR, information that I have been given from various sources reveals that your field office staff in the intake process continue to engage in one or all of the following behavioral deficiencies: (1) refuse to take charges based on race, Black; (2) refuse to allow charging parties to file a class-action charge based on race, black; (3) refuse to allow charging parties to check more than one box and/or name an employment agency; (4) refuse to allow charging parties to mention events outside 180 days even though, the alleged discriminatory events are still timely; (5) telling charging parties that they need more detail information before taking a charge; (6) failing to tell charging parties during the intake process about the agency’s A, B, & C classification system; (7) failing to contact and interview witnesses identified by charging parties; (8) failing to give charging parties pre-determination interviews before cases are dismissed as a “not cause” finding; (9) refusing to give charging parties a status update in a timely manner; (10) refusing to give charging parties and/or their attorneys a copy of respondent’s position statement; (11) failing to make a adverse inference “reasonable cause” finding after respondents have failed to provide a position statement; (12) dismissing cases without respondent’s position statement; (13) lack of coordination among EEOC personnel (e.g., different investigators assigned to charges against the same respondent involving the same allegations and discriminatory practice; (14) investigators telling charging parties during the intake process that they can not file a charge because they do not have direct evidence; (15) when charging parties request a copy of the investigative file they find no in-depth investigation was conducted; (16) investigators are dismissing cases solely on respondent’s position statement without giving charging parties an opportunity to refute what respondent has said; (17) investigators during the intake process tell charging parties there is no merit to their charge; (18) investigators giving charging parties legal advice during the intake process; (19) investigators not seeing retaliation when it is right in front of their face; (20) intake investigators not knowing and/or understanding elementary principles of discrimination cases; and (21) Directors refusing to reopen cases after charging parties in a timely a manner have provided additional evidence to support their case. It does not take an increase in the agency’s budget to correct the above problems.
I and members of my executive board listened very carefully to the questions posed
to Commissioners Victoria Lipnic, Chai Feldblum, and General Counsel, P. David Lopez and you during the confirmation hearings last year. Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin, asked you two very important questions. He asked you (1) how much money you needed and (2) how were you going to handle the large backlog of cases. You responded by telling him that you could not provide him with an answer at the time. You also told him that after you were confirmed and given an opportunity to review the agency’s operation, you would be better prepared to give him a report. However, I have not seen such a report in the media. Instead, it appears that you relied on inaccurate and/or missing key documents in case processing provided to you by your staff, specifically, Nicholas Inzeo, Director, and Office of Field Programs. You increased the performance goals for District Directors for Federal and private sector complaint processing thereby, placing an unnecessary increase of performance goals on the bargaining unit employees without justification, which resulted in the Union filing fifty-three (53) Unfair Labor Practice Charges (ULPs).EEOC is the only federal agency with the most responsibility in enforcing more anti-discrimination laws with the least amount of employees than any other agency. The AFGE Council 216 should be lobbying Congress to raise the agency’s authorized ceiling 4,000 full time employees rather than 3,000 and increase the budget to $478 million. Civil rights organizations would be on the front lines helping the agency to convince the Congress that such appropriations are needed to enforce the civil rights laws, which protect against discrimination on the job, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability and genetics. Unfortunately, EEOC has mishandled the appropriations already granted by Congress, leaving aggrieved individuals who filed charges or complaints suffering the consequences.
In FY 2009, Congress made sure the agency received an extra $23 million dollars to help reduce backlog of cases. All this money did not go to hiring 200 or more investigators. How was the money spent to help tackle the growing backlog of cases? On November 15, 2010, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) issued a decision which indicated the agency violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by requiring employees to request compensatory time off in lieu of overtime compensation. The agency is aware that it has an outstanding bill of approximately $7 million dollars or more for intentionally and willfully violating the FLSA. Nevertheless, the agency has failed to put in its budget funding to compensate investigators, mediators, and paralegals for working overtime. I believe the AFGE Council 216 has done very little in requesting that the agency put in its budget the funding to compensate the employees for working overtime. The agency and union have engaged in “featherbedding” which has prevented the employees from being compensated for working overtime. I am going to ask Congress to follow the money.
As a civil rights advocate as well as a stakeholder, I am obligated to ferret out “injustice” throughout the federal government and assist in correcting any misconception or misinformation concerning the public’s civil rights; and what action is being taken to protect them from discrimination. I am deeply disturbed after reviewing the EEOC’s Charge and All Statues Statistical Data for FY 1997 through FY 2010, when comparing “no reasonable cause” findings to “reasonable cause” findings. How will the agency effectively process and investigate charges filed under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, when the agency’s own statistical data clearly shows that it is having a difficult time in eradicating discrimination in the workforce with the anti-discriminations laws it enforces before the aforementioned law was passed? I know oftentimes the decision to eradicate discrimination is not pleasantly received by respondents; however, the agency must be a much better job in fulfilling its mission because the public has lost confidence.
I want a written response within fifteen (15) days of receipt of letter answers to the following questions. (1) Why are cases with a “reasonable cause” determination transferred to ADR for conciliation and held there for six months or longer until conciliation efforts fail, and no lawsuits filed? (2) Why was the charge filed Charging Party, William F. Keck, a White male, (Charge No. 520-2008-02765) and Charging Party, Ann Judith Yancey, a White female, (Charge No. 520-2008-0221) against Atrium Staffing, LLC. was transferred to the EEOC’s Newark Area Office, and the charging parties issued a “no cause” finding on September 30, 2009, when they both provided sufficient evidence to show that respondent had engaged in lawful employment practices against African Americans? (3) Has there been an independent investigation conducted regarding the racial remarks made by Ms. Electra Yourke, a White female, when she states “that no matter how much experience and/or education a Black person has they don’t qualify for anything.” Ms. Yourke as a public official is liable for her actions. In fact, her remarks were outside of her sworn official duties. Therefore, she has no official immunity under Title 42 § 1983.
I am prayerful that the above information will be acted upon immediately in order to gain the public’s trust back “with all deliberate speed”. I hope you will make a difference in combating discrimination more effectively in the workplace. EEOC is not in the business of giving respondents a safe haven to hide when they engaged in unlawful employment practices. The public’s demands are too important to be overlooked. Indeed, you have been given the opportunity to reshape the direction of the agency.
I wish you the very best traveling down this road. I hope you will be motivated by the dreams that former civil rights advocates had that equal justice under law might be a reality in the workplace during your tenure. “Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I you have any questions regarding this letter; please contact me at (602) 252-4064.
Sincerely,
Rev. Oscar S. Tillman
President/National Board of Directors
NAACPcc: Stuart Ishimaru
Constance S. Barker
Victoria Lipnic
Chai R. Feldblum
P. David Lopez
Roslyn M. Brock
Benjamin T. Jealous
Margaret Morgan
Sen. Jon Kyl
Sen. John McCain
Tom Harkin
Sen. Barbara Boxer
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Sen. Barbara Milulski
Sen. Johnny Isakson
Sen. John Corny
Sen. Charles Schumer
Rep. Darrell Issa
Rep. Ed Pastor
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Latasha Brown
Ricardo Jones
Walker Harman
Randell Pittman
Donald Winfield
Regina Murry
-
Permalink Reply by Maggie Meehan on
-
Hi, Jon....still disagree with your interpretation of voting....not to validate the government but to communicate; btw do you pay your taxes? now THAT'S validation! Thanks for all the info.
Jon Raymond said:Thanks Maggie,
I guess I've lost patience with the government and at this point, until I see the government embrace the issues occupy has raised (which will be a cold day in hell), I will have nothing to do with voting, support, or validation of this corrupt corporate welfare police state government. Occupy is probably the catalyst that turned me. They have proven that people can live quite easily without government, without a top-down organization, and with organized anarchy.
Your fig leaf concept is intriguing in that you seem to be saying that since the government is your adversary you'll give a peace offering in the form of voting to validate its existence. This is what I think the problem is. If people would just wake up to the fact that they actually have all the power if they'd only use it, we might make some progress. Instead we just seem the same scenario election after election, decade after decade. Don't vote. Protest in the streets. Invalidate this piece of crap mafioso government and maybe they'll pay attention. Keep voting and you play right into their grubby little hands.
My film is available on its website in DVD or Blu-Ray format. Also I would love it if you would "like" our Facebook page where you can keep up to date on health care reform issues, and link to other activist supporters and organizations like HCA and PNHP.
-
Permalink Reply by Jon Raymond on
-
Thanks for supporting our film. I pay taxes because I am forced to do so by the police state. That's not validation. That's bodily threat.
© 2013 Created by Smiley and West.
